Most convincing evidence for creation theory

IamJoseph An empty assertion since an intelligent life form in another galaxy could possibly say the same thing about the first space faring that they endeavored in attempting also.Those intelligences could also be far in advance of our own as well so supreme is hardly a fair term in such a large theatre as the universe.

Razd, imo your argument is a strawman. My tickets are all winners which can be substantiated as at least supportive to ID. The more of these tickets there are existing, the greater my prize, which is in no way analogous to your strawman gambler's lottery argument.Your ten suspect analogy is simply another similar strawman.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

One problem with IAJ's title and OP is that it does not differentiate between creationist evolutionists and ID creationists.Since evolutionist folks like Jar, Phat and others also call themselves faith based creationists, unless creo IDists designate as such, there may be some element of confusion laced in this thread. Thus I designate my argument to ID creationism.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

Your opinion does not enter into it. It either IS or it ISN'T and all you need to do to SHOW it is provide the evidence.Conversely that fact that your argument can be used with EQUAL legitimacy by:
Hindu
Muslim
Norse
Egyptian
Aztec
Etc
Etc
.
.
.
Any religion you care to nameMeans that it does not show your "ID Creationism" is correct -- it is not positive evidence for YOUR belief.Enjoy

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Care to bring the above to What variety of creationist is Buzsaw? (Minnemooseus and Buzsaw only)? I don't think it has previously appeared in that GD topic.Moose

quote:

---

Simply asserting this doesn't make it true. An assertion is not evidence.

​

Where is the evidence that the appearance of design is produced by an invisible Designer.

---

It is not a just asserting situation that a design should have a designer: there is no alternative to this premise. Science makes conclusions with far less credible evidences, assuming any vague imprint which can be aligned with a preferred theory as a fact - even while those evidences could point to a 1000 other directions. The correct path of reason and determination is as follows:Imagine that Darwin's TOE, and the Random assumption never happened, and the situation is examined anew. Would you still conclude there is no designer behind a complex design - even when no designer can be proven? Then imagine that today's neo science says there is a design but no designer - even when the NO DESIGNER premise cannot prove any alternative: Darwin's Random does not tell us how life evolved, and begins in a post design scenario! This is the same as saying a car comes from metal which became a car by itself - there is no car maker - and it is proven because the car maker cannot be proven. But nor can Mr. Random prove his premise!Random is based not on reason or science - but only to uphold the most unscientific prmise imaginable. This comes from a premise of 'not knowing' - which is an unacceptable situation for human minds: not knowing is a far more intollerable situation than knowing bad news. A preferred falsehood triumphs reason here. And not knowing where one comes from is the ultimate slap in the face for humans - it is akin to an offspring seeking his/her biological parents separated from it. Here, it is easy to slip in an anomoly - to escape the unacceptable alternative. This is what happened with the Random assumption being accepted as science.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

An empty assertion since an intelligent life form in another galaxy could possibly say the same thing about the first space faring that they endeavored in attempting also.Those intelligences could also be far in advance of our own as well so supreme is hardly a fair term in such a large theatre as the universe.

---

Then you should put your reasoning on 'HOLD' - and wait till ET knocks on your door. This has not occured for 4.5 Billion years.

This is interesting. Let me see if I can make sense of this.You seem to be saying that if you have 100 pieces of evidence.I suspect that you would also agree that as then number of pieces of evidence increases, the likelihood that it is correct also increases.Meanwhile, the opposite should also be true, as thenumber of pieces of evidence decreases, the likelihood that it is correct also decreases.Excellent. That is a foundation from which we can all proceed.Now, given that NONE of the evidence presented supports ID or Creationism. That leaves you in a bit of a pickle doesn't it?

So you believe that God individually designs EVERY snowflake as it freezes? Since, CLEARLY these show a geometric pattern and therefore a design.

quote:

---

While some might see the Bible as positive evidence, they have to provide some reason for it to be given anymore weight than the Norse Mythology or any other creation myths.

---

Sure. Science has to remain as a science; math and history must also remain true to itself. But not proving does not culminate in another unproven being proven, because proving is relative to man's vocab at a given time. The flat earth was not unscientific, relative to that generation's vocab: you would have concluded the same 4000 years ago. Also, one cannot ask unreasonable proofs as the condition to countenance an ubsurdity.When genesis says vegetation and life were already created, yet nothing grew before the rains came (meaning there was life but it was static/'nothing grew') - it is not anti-science, but requires contemplation based on an agreed preamble of reasoning. Today science recognises that the moon was pivotal in life's activation, by virtue of early period impacts which created a soup of the admixture of minerals subsequent to ocean level increases which resulted in waves a 1000 times greater than today.But the problem comes from poor science being imposed here, to ratify another poor premise held. Life could still not emerge solely by these actions, but had to be pre-designed to effect that result. It did not happen elsewhere, despite all the mixed conditions imaginable. Life did not emerge because of H2O: the impacting of water and minerals had to be 'receptive' (pre-designed) to each other. Water would not produce life on Mars or Jupiter. Genesis is pointing to a pattern and system how it occured only. It is telling that all the ingredients and properties for life was 'set' - and this is how it occured. The static (inactive) life became dynamic (active) life, subsequent to the triggering by the Moon and rain, upon an already pre-designed situation: there is no alternative to this, but aheistic neo science has bypassed this logic.Its the same as your mobile starts to work when you insert batteries and a chip. It does not mean the battery and chip created your mobile: they are 'receptive' to each other in a critical mode - which means a pre-design scenario was in place; the battery and chips would be inactive on Jupiter. Creationism is expressed very well in genesis - it is not understood when there is a preferred agenda which does not examine the situation with an agreed preamble, and has subsequently lapsed into a design without a designer. It is chaos, self-contradicting, non-science and non-logic.Equally, vegetation was not created by the sun, and genesis correctly points to this fact: the sun's luminosity appears 'AFTER' vegetation was created; the sun's luminosity sustains life same as does food and water - these are mutually receptive. Nor does the sun create light - it produces light only because light per se was pre-existant of the stars, else the stars could not produce light. Genesis correctly says Light is the first entity. Can one pour water from a jar into a glass - before water existed?

quote:

---

Now, given that NONE of the evidence presented supports ID or Creationism. That leaves you in a bit of a pickle doesn't it?

---

The reverse is the case. The one in a pickle is EFFECT WITHOUT A CAUSE. Whatever we know and not know, does not negate tht Random cannot be a cause for a complexity: this is the only scientific preamble. And this remains a sound premise even without proof. Creationism, as opposed religions, remains a sound scientific premise.

IamJoseph The reason is less to do with the unlikelihood of an intelligence out in the depths of space somewhere and more to do with the obstacles that must be overcome to traverse any distance to another star system just on the basis of the physics. This is neglecting the resource requirements to transport life forms over those distances nor the means of marshaling those resources on a planet to basically throw it away for all practical purposes.
To travel at the speed of light would take us to the nearest star system in just over 4 years. 8 years not including time spent at destination. However at just 1/3 the speed of light free hydrogen in space becomes the equivalent of cosmic rays and somewhat detrimental to survival. delicate electronics fry life support is threatened and due to location AMA is really tough to get ahold of.

quote:

---

The reason is less to do with the unlikelihood of an intelligence out in the depths of space somewhere and more to do with the obstacles that must be overcome to traverse any distance to another star system just on the basis of the physics.

---

This too is poor science and maths. Life, as per random, has not only never occured here for 4.5 B years or with our closest neighbours, or the vast known universe - it is also wrong to assume the distance has any bearing. This ignores that some space bodies may be older than those in our galaxy, yet NOT be impossibly far away. And we know that mental prowess is based on time. This says at least one of the billions of life forms which should be out there - will acquire the ability to send a message better than us. And we can send signals to billions of miles into space. If any signal of life was sent to earth - even billions of years ago - we would have this today and the matter would be resolved. When science retreats to such conditions - it is not science anymore.The time and distant factors only evidence the reverse of what is being submitted as evidence.

I think you misunderstand the word "random".Here's what dictionary.com says: However, the ToE describes LIVING systems. There is a "definite aim" - survival.Natural selection is not "random selection".If this is beyond you capacity to understand, we can go into greater detail

quote:

---

However, the ToE describes LIVING systems. There is a "definite aim" - survival.

​

Natural selection is not "random selection".

​

If this is beyond you capacity to understand, we can go into greater detail

---

I have also studied what you have. Of course the aim is survival - but it is based on random - there is no need to show no aim to evidence random. And survival is an effect - not a causation factor. Its like saying there is an aim to make a car - but eventually there is only random as its foundation, which is then denied by virtue each item used in the car self-generates towards that goal. That this is ubsurd is independent of whether one accepts Creationism or not; it is independently ubsurd, and comes from an agenda to contrive ubsurdities to justify that agenda.There is no science here - which is a pity, because science is a sacred institution. It is wasted acumen here. I too cannot prove a Creator - but acknowledge it as a sound premise nontheless, regardless of the ubsurdities existing in mutually exclusive religious doctrines. I don't reject science, I uphold it and fully appreciate medicine and Newton's elegant equations which explained why an apple falls to the ground. IMHO, there is no such thing as 'nature' or 'evolution' - yet I utilise these as intelligent placebos in place of what is inexplicable. Once science finds a more clearer reason for the inexplicable, the term nature is dropped for terms such as GRAVITY, MC2 and sublime equations. The latter affirms a design, it does not negate it.Survival is not an explanation to condone a random into a complexity - no matter how it is dressed up. Even if we are left with no answer - we still have to be clinging and demanding the sound premise. But I also agree science cannot go there - science cannot say there is a designer and sit back and do nothing. Thus science is only applicable to this side of the universal realm. Just as surely as science cannot tell us a thing about a pre-universe scenario, or the origins of - ANYTHING.